If it’s true that we lack reasonable metrics for our progress in the war on terror anything that the Admin has said about how it’s been going, (other than, “I dunno”), is an “imprecise” “mis-statement” and quite possibly a “not-lie”.
We were projected, (pre-war, to have th enumber of US troops in Iraq down to 30,000 or so by September this year. As it’s nearly Novemeber, and we have 100,000+ still there, I’d guess that it’d be fair to say that teh estimeates provided were not the ones we should’ve heard. As a rule of thumb, the estimates used to sell this invasion were of on of the extremes. When it came to the threat posed by Hussein, the estimates used were the worst case scenarios, and when it came to discussing American commitments, the “very best case” scenarios were used. While all of these were, in fact, valid projections, it is justifiable to see the use of these two extremes in this manner as irresponsible.
Heck, Rumsfeld thought he could take Iraq with just 75,000 troops. We’ve got twice that many there now that major combat has ended, and things are getting shakier by the week.
If you recall the Atlantic’s Nov 2002 article on turning Iraq into the 51st state, their “nightmare scenario” envisioned an occupation force of 50,000 to 75,000
Just in case anyone wishes to avoid the sin of historical revisionism, here’s Ken Adelman’s Cakewalk commentary in the Washington Post
Bush said both things. I think that it’s irrelevant. The war should not have happened in the way it did. It’s too late to fix what they have broken. Why are there people who are apologizing for him? What has he done for you?
If one is right-leaning one would argue that “the President has stated in clear English that there is progress toward a free and liberated Iraq.”
If one is left-leaning one would be inclined to ask, "What is ‘the strategy’? What are we measuring ‘very good progress’ against? What in specific terms defines ‘the establishment of a free Iraq’?
Bush Administration:
The Right: Well there it is fool! There is your definition! The President is being as upfront as possible.
The Left: What is the STRATEGY for arriving at these lofty heights? Are there clearly defined milestones that can be used to measure our progress toward this end? If neither of these questions can be answered in specifics then what has been stated is the equivalent of a corporate “Mission Statement” which is idyllic and lofty at best but does not speak to any specific methodology.
From reading through the numerous threads that have dealt with many aspects of this war, from the build-up, to the strategy, to the occupation, to the end game, it seems clear that most (in the order of 99%) of the administrations statements on these positions have mutaully deniable ideological interpretations.
I respectfully submit a minor revision to telesis2001’s post to dispel any mistaken notions of partisanship. Please replace “The Right” with “Individuals Who Unquestioningly Accept What They Are Told At Face Value”. Please replace “The Left” with “Individuals Who Think Critically Before Making Up Their Own Minds”.
[/nitpick]
It is OK if one comes to the conclusion through rational means that all is hunky-dory in Iraq - it does not make one a bad person…it simply makes one wrong. What is troubling is the vocal minority of individuals, many of whom are in positions of influence and responsibility, who clearly are in ignorance of or are wilfully dismissive of the preponderance of evidence before them and the rational processes of evaluation and reason.
No, friend Agis, the debate isn’t about whether or when Rumsfeld, or anyone else speaking on behalf of the Administration (including “Cakewalk” Adelman - here’s his own words, for your edification), lied. The “debate” is about whether or not they have a friggin’ clue what the reality is nowor what to do about it now. Even a staunch loyalist like yourself can’t make that claim, but can only try to change the subject.
kwildcat, that’s a useful and necessary distinction. There are indeed many on “The Right” who have reached the same views as the rest of us. Guess what is well on its way to constituting “The Mainstream” now?
I accept the nitpick as constructive criticism and will attempt to display more partismanship in future post
Assumption: A person has no choice in being ignorant, the condition merely exist. (Arguable, of course, but a given for the sake of this argument)
Question: If a person is “wilfully dismissive of the preponderance of evidence before them” what is the impetus of that choice?
Accepting/supporting a more idealistic viewpoint is simpler than gathering, organizing, and presenting a perponderance of evidence in support of a detailed synopsis of the situation.
Accepting/supporting a more idealistic viewpoint allows political maneuvering room for possible future position changes on issues (ex. If public support for the Iraqi occupation begins to slide as candidates begin to campaign for the next election, candidates can maneuver towards criticising specifics of the occupation and away from supporting the ideology of the war).
telesis2001 - Sorry for the confusion, you understandably missed my point about replacing your “Right” and “Left” terms.
I was not attempting to say “The Right are unthinking sheep” or “The Left are the only rational people”. Instead, I was suggesting the removal of any “directional” references and instead frame the conflicting perspectives you outlined in terms of the degree of thought involved in articulating those perspectives. I have always maintained everyone is capable of using reason if they put their mind to it - even Republicans.
Also, c) All of the above - wilful dismissal of reason is easier than making up one’s own mind and a tool for those who have other agendas.
I also think “idealistic” has positive connotations - I don’t know if you actually want to give a positive spin to the absence of reason (something I personally think is a b-a-d thing). Perhaps “unrealistic”?
